1080 vs 720 (closed)

And for theatrical release to 35mm film-out?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

I've not personally shot anything with the JVC or HVX that has gone to filmout, so can't make a personally-experienced comment. However, everything I've heard is that the JVC looks great out on film. I haven't heard a word about the Panny out to film yet.
I've seen lots of Z1 footage out to film, including my own, along with one piece of film from the Canon. It all looks great. I've seen it on a 60' screen with a Christie projector as well as on the same screen from film. Both were stunning, given the source of the footage. (HDV)

[David Kennett]

Just to clarify a few things:

To be fair in any comparison, one must compare raw (uncompressed) data rate. 720p60 and 1080i30 (60 fields) are roughly the same data rate, so that's where the comparison should be made. JVC chose to reduce framerate to 30, and use less MPG compression. Sony made in effect the same decision by reducing h-res to 1440.

converting 1080i to 1080p is NOT simplistic if done well. Consider this: In parts of a picture where there is motion, the best resolution you can hope to get is half the vertical res. Since the subject has moved, the information is simply not there. The other part of the problem is that no matter how you combine fields, you are left with only 30 frames. On the other hand, you could give up half v-res, and have 60 frames progressive, but then where are you?

DSE, While I respect your opinions as a professional, as a technonerd, I prefer to see the measurements - or do my own evaluation. Incidently, I've thought for a number of years that Sony cameras have made consistently better pictures.

1080p60 - and this discussion can end.

[David Heath]

One of the best bits of pure science research I've seen giving some definitive answers comes from the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp...les/WHP092.pdf . Whilst the science behind it can't be disputed, some of the conclusions may have become outdated almost before they were written for reasons the authors could not have foreseen - mainly the sheer speed with which flat screens have got bigger and cheaper.

They assume a domestic viewing distance of 2.7m which is eerily close to what I've measured at home - 2.6m. However, they further assume that "the preferred size for large flat screen TVs is likely to settle at between 37" and 42" and conclude that therefore 720p/50 is likely to be adequate. Only 18 months later that assumption seems already outdated, with 42" screens almost becoming the norm for this market, and with 50" becoming more common, the prices of the latter plummeting in the past 6 months. My own measurements have led me to feel that I'd prefer a 50" wall mounted screen for that viewing distance. A year ago I'd ruled that out on cost grounds, now I feel it will be quite feasible in the next 12 months.

Returning to the BBC paper, the graph on fig 9 then shows that for that screen size/viewing distance 720 will be inadequate for about 50% of observers, compared to only about 20% for the screen sizes they had envisaged at the time of writing. It's worth noting that these comments (and those of the EBU) are only really applicable to systems fed broadcast material. I wouldn't like to even begin to use them to draw conclusions about individual cameras, especially at the less expensive end, where overall performance may be limited by factors other than the system resolution. They also don't say anything about codecs or compression systems etc.

[Leo Pepingco]

Seeing as that I'm a theatre graduate with a minor in film. And having extensive knowledge of Directing.... I know what to shoot and what to loook for. But since I'm done with university, and working on my own for now, I've conceded to teach myself Cinematography. So Hence, I wanted to know what all the fuss was about 720p and 1080i

having said that, I can see why there is much confusion and NEED for such discussions in these forums... Even reading these responses to help generate a descision for myself is making my head hurt. Which is why I never became a cinematographer and/or camera operator in the first place.

So in the meantime, I'd like everyone to know that I've made a descision to go for progressive. Film is film, and video is video, and progressive is the poser music fan. the Closer I can get to film without haivng to spend all that money on film and crew, the better. I can do shoots with only 2 people minus talent. Heck Im a director. So Then I've made a descision and going for preogressive... no matter what the resolution, as long as it can still be accepted. someone said that 720 is the minupm res for broadcast. So, I persoanlly dont understnad the animosity towards it...

If progressive can give you a look that Interlaced can not do as well, without hainvg to convert it... and in school (grade 11) I learned that any kind of digital, or analogue conversion will ALWAYS have a level of degredation. So the JVC it is for me... If I want film like quality, and half the job is done for me, then I'll get it. Besides, it can still be shows on Television and projectors without much heavy conversions... right?

now all I need to do is learn how to make the background out of focus to get that cool DoF crispness we always see with american shows show on 35mm.. (ie Stargate Season 3 onwards.)

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Leo, I'm confused. At the risk of sounding condescending, how on earth did you graduate with a minor in film knowing very much about progressive vs interlaced media, but you don't understand how to create or shoot with shallow depth of field?

And no, conversions from D 2 A or A 2 D don't always have degradations. In this subject, I'd likely agree they do, but you get to decide where the degradation occurs with 720p, just like you get to decide with 1080.

[Leo Pepingco]

Its not so much a minor in film, but the directing side of things.... All I knew about cameras itself was limited... I was trained to edit and cut film, and use Non linear editing programs, and studied theoretical texts on the image and presentation of the image.

Basically, I did everyhting but touch a camera... I basically taught myself how to shoot... I do it ok, but I want to move further than just point and shoot...

Lately I've been reading up on Apeture and shutter speed and trying so hard to get all the numbers into my head, but I do know the theories behind it all...

I know about DoF.. I just dont know HOW to make it, I just know it from a book. Its terrible, I know.

In essence, I was a theatre student who had access to theoretical film studies. If its anything to do with movies, I can recite the past 100 years or so of film and photography history. I can also debate the descisions of why directors, cinmeatographers and editors chose to show the story this way or that etc. I was also taught how to apply all that to a directing role, an acting role and an editing role.... I've never touched a camera.

After I graduated, I grabbed as much books etc on cameras and such and found the FX1 the Z1 and all manner of the latest technology.... Then I started reading.... It just so happens, I began to research the diff between Progressive and itnerlaced and all the lovely electronic doohickeys in the back of a camera.... I have a book on optics which is the third one down from the list of books I'm reading up on... I'll probably be back in this forum in about 2 months asking questions and clarrification about optics and DoF and Focus etc...

I dont have a set way to study this subject because no one is teaching me.... I'm learning it all from scratch. i'm sorry if I have made problems with anyone, I just didnt know the whole 720p and 1080i thing was quite advanced to grapple.

[Ken Hodson]

Douglas - "1. Interlaced at the 50i/60 framerate offers sharper pictures in high motion, doesn't suffer from stutter like 24, 25, or 30p, and downconverts very well to those formats.
2. All displays manufactured since January 05 are 1080, and so why shoot in a smaller resolution than native to the display?"

A few more inquiries. As to #1, I would have to debate with how you are comming to this conclusion. You don't mention which cam would be shooting 50i/60i, so I will assume a Sony Z1 is your reference and you are comparing it to a HD100 that has been mentioned throughout this thread. Now which cam would offer "sharper pictures" would largely depend on the shutter speed. Now I thought it was pretty well understood that unless you shoot with a lower shutter speed that intentionaly blurs motion, being progressive, the HD100 offers a sharper image where as the Sony, while producing a very nice picture, but is noted to be very soft for HD and natoriously so in the "high motion" catagory. I mean the universally applauded Sony's are noted for two negatives. Not coming anywhere close to actual 1080i level of detail, and being extreemly soft in motion. Maybe you can further refine your point?

As far as knocking 720p for "stuttering" that is just as stupid as knocking 1080i for being interlaced. It is a fact of the format. You don't knock a 35mm film cam because it has stutter. And you can't knock 60i as not looking film like. One should understand what/how they are shooting and shoot within the guidlines of that format. For the last 100 years I don't think anyone said not to shoot film because it "stutters" or they would have been laughed all the way back to film basics 101!

As far as #2: Are you saying know one makes a native 720p set anymore?

[Ron Evans]

Gentlemen, 24p is an electronic emulation of the inadequacy of film!! 24fps was about the limit for acceptable projection and cost and size of film stock. To mask these inadequacies film makers for decades have used shallow depth of field ( to mask juddering backrounds), angled shots ( to mask the juddering of fast moving objects), slow motion ( using high speed cameras to acquire, played back at 24fps to allow a transverse shot without judder, etc, etc. None of these limitations now apply with modern technology. One doesn't need to shoot at 24p to use any of these techniques and give a film look and remove the very annoying judder!!! I believe the next step in commercial entertainment will likely be 1080p60 or more making all this talk about 24p pointless. I am not a professional but am in my mid 60s and made "films" since 1963, 8mm, Super8,16mm,VHS,Hi8,DV and now HDV as part of a seriously addictive hobby!!!
For me the important issue is not whether it is 720 or 1080 its really what is the frame rate. Anything less than about 50P will not meet the criteria for smooth motion and no flicker, 60 or above would be much better. Who has their computer monitor set for less than 60hz?

Ron Evans

[Graham Hickling]

> For me the important issue is not whether it is 720 or 1080 its really what is the frame rate.

Exactly! For me, the Sony A1 is preferable to the JVC HD10 not because of 1080 vs 720 but because of i60 vs p30. And p60 is preferable to either them.

And if p60 "doesnt look like film" ... well that's great, I say!

[Ken Hodson]

Ron: "None of these limitations now apply with modern technology. One doesn't need to shoot at 24p to use any of these techniques and give a film look and remove the very annoying judder!!"

While I hear what you are saying, 24p is very much a reality today. If you want a filmout it has to be 24p. If you want to make the highest quality DVD, you want it to be 24p anamorphic. As much as I wish 60p was ther standard it isn't. Yet. So are you suggesting everyone shoot 50/60i? as that is the only other option. And it will give you a dirastically differant look.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Ken Hodson

If you want a filmout it has to be 24p. If you want to make the highest quality DVD, you want it to be 24p anamorphic.

While you're welcome to your opinion, Ken, the above statement is not accurate.
You might want to do a film out on your own, it's the best way to understand the process. Or spend some time talking to the various film-out houses, or read what they have written novels about acquiring at 60i and converting to 24p. There are benefits both ways, and no film house in the world will support what you've said here.
I recommend DFG, they've done a few for us. http://www.digitalfilmgroup.net/ (They were part of the development team for the JVC, BTW) They, like many filmhouses, have spend thousands of $ and more in hours developing 60i to 24p output tools, and depending on how you shot 24p, some prefer the 60i.
24p is great as an artistic tool, but to suggest it's the *only* thing out there that delivers quality is wrong. In fact, many television shooters hate it, and if you spend time reading other fora where you'll catch a lot of the DGA shooters, they're more excited about 60p than anything.

[Chris Hurd]

There is no one single method for 35mm film out from HDV or any other digital video format. Just about every transfer house out there has a different way to do it and a different set of preferences.

[Ken Hodson]

Douglas: "24p is great as an artistic tool, but to suggest it's the *only* thing out there that delivers quality is wrong."

If you think that is what I said, you need to re-read my post(s) and take into referance to what I was responding to. I don't know why you are arguing with me that a film out has to be 24p. Yes you can use 60i source, but what has to happen to it? It has to be converted to 24p! So what are you even debating?

[Graham Hickling]

I think DSE (and now me) are taking issue with your statement that "a DVD has to be 24p for highest quality".

Filmout is a separate issue...